Welcome to our
archive of Civil War Harper's Weekly newspapers. We have posted our
collection of newspapers online to serve as a research tool for students
and history buffs. These papers are a valuable source of original
material on the War, and contain a wealth of incredible illustrations.

(Scroll Down to See Entire Page, or Newspaper Thumbnails below will take you to the page of interest)

HARPER'S WEEKLY.

SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 1864.
THE QUESTION.

THE friends of
Mr. CHASE can not but regret the appearance of
the POMEROY circular. It is understood, indeed, that the Secretary himself
denies any previous knowledge of it. That could hardly be otherwise, for it
would clearly be inconsonant with the self-respect of any honorable man to
continue to form part of an Administration which he condemned as injurious to
"the cause of human liberty and the dignity and honor of the nation," or to be
the confidential adviser of a President whom he had denounced as so corrupt as
to make the "one-term principle absolutely essential to the certain safety of
our republican institutions."

But while we fully exonerate the
Secretary from any actual complicity in the preparation or publication of such a
document, there can be no doubt that the movement to present his name for the
Presidency has been fully known to him and not disapproved. Long used as we have
been to respect Mr. CHASE, we regret this fact profoundly; not, certainly,
because any citizen may not honorably wish such a distinction, nor because we
believe him to be inadequate to the office, but because his action inevitably
divides and distracts the loyal men of the country, and because we can not see
in what way his removal from the Treasury to the White House will counterbalance
the immense disadvantage of such a change at the present juncture.

If it were true, as the POMEROY
programme sets forth, that the re-election of
Mr. LINCOLN is impossible; or that his
re-election would endanger the country and human liberty; or that he has
corruptly used his power of patronage, we should, on any one of those grounds,
advocate some other candidate; because the defeat of the Union standard-bearer,
the peril of the nation and of liberty, and official corruption, are greater
dangers to the country than a change in the Presidency.

But as Mr. LINCOLN'S re-election
seems to us infinitely more possible and probable than his original election; as
his administration can by no impartial spectator be said to have imperiled the
country, or to have injured human liberty; and as the imputation of corruption
no more cleaves to him than to Washington, we must look for other reasons before
sympathizing with any effort to expose the country to the consequences of all
the changes that follow a change of the President. It is not that Mr. LINCOLN
has any other "claim" than his record that we

so earnestly wish his
re-election. Ability and honesty are the only claims to the Presidency which we
recognize. We find both in him, while we certainly do not deny them to others.
But this is not a question of "claims." If it were, on what grounds could
General FREMONT and other good men be
overlooked? It is a question of national policy and good sense. How can the
country be carried through the necessary excitement of a Presidential election
in the midst of civil war with the least danger and distraction?—that is the
question. Is it likely to be done by a general wrangle among Union men as to
whether Mr. CHASE, or General FREMONT, or
General BUTLER, or
General GRANT, or
somebody else, are more likely to carry out the present policy of the war, and
secure peace by liberty; or by the general assent of the friends of all these
gentlemen that the man who is no less a lover of liberty than they, who has
officially initiated and pursued that policy, and who has borne himself with
marvelous sagacity in his difficult post, is the man to pursue that policy to
the end? We know not what either of the gentlemen named would do; but we do know
what Mr. LINCOLN has done. Is it perfectly clear that any one of them—and no man
can respect and admire them more than we—would have achieved nobler results for
the country and human liberty than he? And is the chance that they might do so
worth the inevitable risk?

It is a wise friend in another
State who writes us: "It is difficult to understand how men really desirous to
advance the cause of liberty and of the Union can, with the remembrance of the
200,000 votes cast for WOODWARD, Slavery, and Disunion last October in
Pennsylvania, think it desirable to support any candidate whose only claim to
superiority over Mr. LINCOLN lies in the fact of his being supported by a
smaller party. * * * In Mr. LINCOLN'S words, 'It is very difficult to do
sensible things.' "

THE ISSUE PRESENTED.

THE spectator of the political
drama will observe that the remnant of the late
Democratic party has opened its
campaign both in New York and Connecticut; and if he would understand what the
spirit of the movement is he must look not only at what the formal resolutions
say, but at the known views of the leaders. He will then find that in
Connecticut the platform is essentially that of last year, upon which stood Mr.
THOMAS H. SEYMOUR, a practical disunionist, who was supported by FERNANDO WOOD,
CHAUNCEY BURR, and their friends, and was signally defeated by the loyal men of
the State after one of the most thorough and exciting campaigns ever known. This
year Mr. ORIGEN SEYMOUR is the candidate—a gentleman whose views justify his
name. For the name of SEYMOUR stands in this country in the same relation to the
great democratic doctrine of equal rights and the Union as its guarantee that
the name of BOURBON holds in Europe to the rights of the people. There is no
more essential difference between the Connecticut SEYMOUR of this year and the
SEYMOUR of last year than between the platforms upon which they stand. The
rebels will as earnestly desire the success of the one as they did of the other.
The President of the Convention was Mr. W. W. EATON, who is a political brother
of VALLANDIGHAM. With full rebel sympathy, his speech was a furious denunciation
of the Government of the United States, and of the war for its preservation, and
an effort to sow distrust between the East and the West. Mr. EATON is a
notorious apostle of the "peace," which means submission to the rebellion: and
the issue in Connecticut is as simple as that between loyal men and rebels.
There can be no doubt that every vote for Mr. EATON'S candidate will be justly
counted as a vote in favor of settling the war upon such terms as JEFFERSON
DAVIS may dictate.

In New York the Convention of the
same party has elected its delegates to the National Convention. Its leaders
were Mr. GIDEON J. TUCKER and Mr. JOHN M'KEON, who carried the Convention
against the "War Democrats." Mr. TUCKER is an open enemy of the war and friend
of the rebels. Mr. M'KEON is the leader of the "Peace Democracy." All the
speeches that denounced the Government were loudly applauded, while those that
appealed to the national honor and love of the Union were heard in silence. The
delegates selected, with the exception of Mr. DEAN RICHMOND, who is understood
to be in favor of saving the Union and the Government, and possibly a few
others, were of the extremest wing of VALLANDIGIIAM sympathizers. No patriotic
resolutions were passed, nor was any word in disapproval of the war waged by
traitors against the country uttered by the voice of the Convention.

The issue is thus far not less
clearly joined in New York than in Connecticut. The question is between the
ignominious defeat of the Government and its unconditional triumph. According to
the speeches and views which were approved by these Conventions, the danger to
the country is not from the rebellion, but from the loyal people who are
suppressing it. Could any thing so plainly indicate political fatuity and
desperation as making such an issue at such a time?

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF.

IN a late speech in Congress Mr.
Henry Winter Davis referred to "the exposition of the views of President Lincoln
as given by Postmaster-General Blair," whose comments upon public affairs were
attacks upon the emancipation policy, and never having been disavowed by the
President were to be gravely considered.

Now we know that Mr. Lincoln knew
nothing of Mr. Blair's first and important speech in New Hampshire until long
after it was delivered, but did know of Mr. Whiting's letter to the Poughkeepsie
meeting, which was by no means an attack upon the emancipation policy, but
entirely satisfactory to its warmest friends. Mr. Blair no more speaks for the
President than any other member of the Cabinet speaks for him.

As to the principle of holding
the President responsible for what any Secretary may say, unless he formally
denies it, does Mr. Davis seriously assert it or mean to be tried by it?
Mr.
Seward at the beginning of the war thought that the rebellion might be ended in
a very short time. Did Mr. Lincoln, therefore, think so? Mr. Chase at the same
time was not opposed to letting the seceding States go, thinking, probably, that
they could not be held. Was Mr. Lincoln, therefore, of that opinion? Undoubtedly
the theoretical views of the
Cabinet are as different as its members; and we
need not ask any of them, nor search in their speeches to find, what the
President thinks. He speaks plainly to the people, to whom he feels himself to
be directly accountable. Mr. Blair may have his own views of the colored race in
this country. Mr. Lincoln has certainly never concealed his. Their part in the
great struggle has never been more finely stated than at the close of his letter
to the Springfield Convention.

"Peace does not appear so distant
as it did. I hope it will come soon and come to stay; and so come as to be worth
the keeping in all future time. It will then have been proved that among freemen
there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they
who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. And then
there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and
clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped
mankind on to this great consummation; while I fear there will be some white
ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they have
striven to hinder it."

Does that sound to Mr. Davis as
if it were cut out of one of Mr. Blair's speeches? And is it not quite as worthy
of "grave and respectful consideration" as the assumption that Mr. Blair speaks
for Mr. Lincoln?

THE PEOPLE AND "POWER."

AT the
Albany Convention Judge
Parker, the President, said that "the world will look with intense interest on
the great struggle between power and the people." The orator meant that the
spectacle of Copperheads trying to conciliate traitors would be interesting to
mankind: for by "power" he means the Government of the United States, and by
"people" his own faction. But inasmuch as in this country it is the very essence
of the Democratic doctrine that the people are the Government, and as Judge
Parker proposes a peaceable and constitutional expression of their will, and as
they have continually confirmed in that manner their own action in the
Government, how is it that the spectacle of the people who are the only "power"
in the country, contending with the people, is to be presented? Judge Parker
wisely refrains from explanations.

In quite another sense than he
intended, however, the world is at this very moment witnessing with intense
interest the struggle between power and the people: between the power of an
oligarchy, heading an insurrection, and the people who are engaged in subduing
the rebels and maintaining their own national existence. Judge Parker exhorts
his hearers to "enjoy the proud satisfaction of having done our whole duty." The
faithful people, with the exception of the rebels and their allies, respond
heartily "Amen." They have done and are doing that duty. Is the worthy Judge
aware that during the last year the people in every State, with some exceptions
in New Jersey, stood steadfastly by the great cause of American Liberty? They
have blazoned on their banner Liberty and Union, and not, with certain political
doctors of the old school at Albany—"Vallandigham and Slavery."

FAIR PLAY.

OUR excellent neighbor the
Tribune asks whether it is not possible by mutual consent to adjourn the
Presidential canvass? It is just about as practicable as to adjourn the coming
of the spring and to postpone crocuses until May. The spring is opening. The
canvass has begun. The signs of it appear in the Tribune every day.

Upon the same page of that paper,
which asks the question of postponement, we find, under the head of Special
Dispatch from Washington, an allusion to the proposition of inquiry into
Secretary Chase's regulation of trade in the Mississippi Valley as a "tender of
services to butcher the reputation of a statesman to whom the nation owes a debt
of gratitude."

Just below we find: "It is stated
here in military circles that this Florida operation was devised and ordered by
the President."

Very well. It is stated by common
sense that such paragraphs do not mean a postponement of the Presidential
canvass; but that one of them, if the Tribune will pardon such language, is a
"dig" at the President, and the other a "boost" for the Secretary of the
Treasury.

The campaign for the nomination
has begun. The Tribune takes naturally an active part in it. It is opposed to
the nomination of Mr. Lincoln, and is doing what it can to create public opinion
against it. It says that Union men will make a grave mistake

if they do not apply the one-term
principle to Mr. Lincoln. Nobody can quarrel with it for saying so, however
opinions may differ. But let us have fair play. The Tribune is not an ostrich.
It surely does not seriously suppose that it is taking no side any more than it
can seriously believe that the President ordered an army to advance into the
enemy's country without skirmishers whatever may be "stated" in military
circles. But it does seriously injure itself, both in the estimation of its
friends with whom it differs and those with whom it agrees, when it insinuates,
and hints, and shrugs, and sneers, instead of frankly owning and maintaining its
opposition to the renomination of Mr. Lincoln.

TYPE IN PI.

THE slaveholders and their
friends have always tried to avoid using the word Slavery. It is too direct and
expressive. It is the synonym of injustice and crime, and every body knows it as
such. Therefore we have been regaled with all kinds of euphuisms. The first is
in the Constitution—"persons held to labor." Then we have had "the peculiar
institution;" and "involuntary servitude;" and "the industrial system of the
South"—and a score more. The thing meant was always inhumanity and crime, but it
was extremely disagreeable to call a slave-market "human shambles," or the
selling of a woman by a "high-toned gentleman" to pay his debts "dealing in
human flesh;" because, as Senator Reverdy Johnson informs us, such "gentlemen"
are very proud and sensitive. But they have now reached the highest point of
euphuism. The address of the Confederate Congress calls what
John Wesley had
more concisely described as "the sum of all villainies" by an infinitely sweeter
name. Human slavery, with all its untold woes and wrongs to the victim and his
master—which the Honorable James Brooks described a few years since as "a dead
drag upon the body politic," endangering "the peace and happiness of the master,
and robbing the slave of his freedom and birthright"—this pleasing system is
airily mentioned in the rebel address as "the selected type of social
characteristics." Mr. Brooks is now of opinion that the selected type of social
characteristics has been thrown into pi—and we heartily agree with him.

THE SOLDIERS' VOTE.

ON the second Tuesday in March
the electors of the State of New York are to decide whether a citizen is to be
disfranchised because he loves his country enough to fight for it. Shall the
soldiers vote? is the question to be answered. We should like to see the party
which would deny them the right. We should like to see the argument which
maintained that in a republic the citizens who cared enough about the system to
peril their lives in its defense should be the very ones who by that act should
be deprived of their share in the government. The process of voting in camp may
have inconveniences, but it has been tried several times during the war, and
whatever the disadvantages may be, the injustice and consequent impolicy of any
other course are evident enough. The obvious objection to the election is that
it assumes the soldiers not to have the right. But that is unavoidable. After
the second Tuesday of March it will be secured to them, or New York will make a
very fatal mistake, and do gross injustice to many of her most faithful
children.

LITERARY.

THE "Life of
Lyman Beecher" is a
most valuable contribution to our biographical literature. In his old age the
"Father of the Beechers," seated in the quiet family-room of the author of
"Uncle Tom's Cabin," was wont to narrate the incidents and reminiscences of his
long and active life. These were taken down by his children; questions were
asked and remarks made which brought out more reminiscences; then illustrative
correspondence and documents were added in their appropriate places; and so upon
this autobiographical thread has been strung a complete memoir of Beecher, with
characteristic pictures of his times. The work though edited by Charles Beecher
is really the joint production of several members of the family.

DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE.

CONGRESS.

SENATE.—February 24. A petition
was presented from citizens of Idaho asking for a division of that Territory, on
the ground that one portion was inaccessible to the other.—A petition was
presented from contractors for gun-boats for an increase of compensation.—The
Committee on the District asked to be discharged from further consideration of
the question of the expediency of a law securing colored persons equal
privileges with whites in the District railroad cars: agreed to.—Mr. Sherman
introduced a bill amending the act for aiding the construction of a railroad and
telegraph from the Missouri to the Pacific. This amrnduient permits the issue of
1,000,000 shares at $100 each; authorizes the Company to appropriate public
lands containing coal and iron at the same rate as paid for agricultural lands:
increases the limits of lands which the Company may locate to twenty miles on
each side, in regions unfitted for agricultural purposes: extends to one year
the time for the completion of the first hundred miles; and allows iron for the
first hundred miles to be imported free of duty.—Mr. Harris introduced a bill
giving to cadets at West Point the same pay as midshipmen, exempting them from
draft, and ordering their dismissal if found deficient in any examination.—The
Secretary of War was requested to furnish the report of the Military Commission
of which General M'Dowell was President, relative to cotton and other
speculations by officers of the army.—Bills authorizing the people of Colorado
and Nevada to form State Governments and enter the Union, were passed. The bills
provide for the exclusion of slavery, and secure perfect religious
toleration.—The amendments of the Military Committee to the house resolution on
the Lieutenant-Generalship came up. Mr. Grimes opposed the resolution on the
ground of its inexpediency. If carried into effect it would either take General
Grant from the field and make him a man of counsel at
Washington, or, while
making him nominally commander-in-chief, would leave him liable to be assigned
to a mere local command; it would confer no distinction except an increase of
rank and
(Next Page)

Site Copyright 2003-2014
Son of the South. For Questions or comments about this collection,
contact paul@sonofthesouth.net